'Microsoft' University: Open Source Too Expensive
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2008-12-17 02:22:26 UTC
- Modified: 2008-12-17 02:22:26 UTC
For a little bit of background, see our previous posts about this ongoing mess at the 'Open' University (OU) [
1,
2]. It was, on the face of it, sort of infiltrated by Microsoft. Here is the
latest development, courtesy of Mark Ballard:
But the OU has refused to precipitate the wholesale switch of students from bought Microsoft software to (where appropriate) free open source alternatives because it would require too much effort and the costs would be too high at a time when the governments is squeezing student funding.
How does it cost
more to move to Free software? The lamest excuse is to say, "let's save money by staying with Microsoft and refusing to change." Is denying Free software now an issue of
cost, as opposed to those legends of "readiness", "reliability", and "dependability"? Since the OU is located in the UK, someone ought to urge them to ask
London hospitals about the cost of viruses (cost of lives too). What about the LSE,
which was suspended at a critical time due to a major .NET crash?
⬆
![Abacus](http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/1116003____check_knowledge___.jpg)
Look -- but dare not touch -- the abacus
Comments
AlexH
2008-12-17 02:26:58
They distribute copies of StarOffice/OpenOffice.org and invest millions in free software. "Microsoft University" is pretty far from the truth.
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-17 02:29:01
Regarding cost, not only short-term considerations need to be seen.
AlexH
2008-12-17 03:13:39
Needs Sunlight
2008-12-17 06:45:18
The cost argument is bullshit. Few if any users need more than a bit of moral support when upgrading from MS to better systems.
The disruption is generally in the support staff, which have to be fired and replaced. If they let the MS problem get out of hand, then they won't be able to retool and usually don't know enough about IT to become useful in a working environment. However, a second way there might be migration costs is that whenever the MS onsite sales team (aka support department) gets even a whiff of an upgrade, they work feverously to rip out any non-MS infrastructure, especially mail and networking protocols. The web servers and intranets also get nailed hard and heavy with VBA and other insecure, unstable lock-in.
Jim
2008-12-18 11:37:37
http://www.open.ac.uk/platform/news/ou-news/new-vice-chancellor-announced?ONEML=pf001&MEDIA=pf001os_07
Dante
2008-12-18 13:08:08
Note I am not saying bad, or good, but different.
The obsucre naming conventions for Linux software, for instance, are part of the learning curve. (IE, instead of something with a catchy name, like Azure, or some rubbish like that, it's given the name of 3543lb.3.0) The fact that there is no one clear guide for installing software in Linux aimed at a M$ customer is a big problem.
I
Jim
2008-12-18 13:26:28
Charles Oliver
2008-12-18 18:09:15
As mentioned the OU distribute StarOffice to students. They also use FirstClass which has a Linux client (not open source) and a web interface.
Though they aim their requirements Windows, they at least mention Macs on their student pages and it's quite possible to access all that is required using Linux.
That's not a brilliant situation but it's better than some other UK universities. I have recently been using the facilities at another UK university and the only way I can access parts of their system is via XP in Virtualbox.
Though the tide is moving against the Microsoft monopoly it's not gone yet and I guess the OU have to support what people have on their home systems.
Bob Mottram
2008-12-18 20:51:39
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-18 20:55:52
Jo Shields
2008-12-18 21:42:14
It's a reasonable argument - I especially liked the OLPC approach of allowing 1-click access to the source of any app on the system